Why wrongful birth actions are right

A wrongful birth action is a claim in negligence brought by parents of a child against a doctor who has "wrongfully" caused their child to be born. These claims can be divided into two categories: those where a doctor performs a failed sterilisation procedure that leads to a healthy child being born; and those where a doctor fails to provide sufficient information to allow parents to choose to abort a handicapped child. The recent decision of the High Court of Australia in Cattanach v Melchior (2003) 77 ALJR 1312 falls into the former category. The decision to allow the parents to receive damages for the costs of raising and maintaining their child has generated much public debate. Despite the endorsement of this "wrongful birth" action, there are indications that the legislature will overturn the decision. This article examines whether there is a sound doctrinal basis for recognising wrongful birth actions.

The moral status of wrongful life claims

A wrongful life action is a claim brought by a disabled child who asserts that but for a physician's negligence he or she would not have been born, thereby being spared the suffering of life. The action is inherently controversial because the alternative to an impaired life is non-existence. Lord Griffiths has described such claims as 'utterly offensive; there should be rejoicing that the hospital's mistake bestowed the gift of life upon the child'.' This paper cuts through the rhetoric that the debate has generated and analyses whether there is a sound doctrinal basis for recognizing wrongful life actions.

The shifting meaning of persecution in the Australian refugee law: How much must one suffer to be deserving of asylum?

Legislative changes to the meaning of persecution in Australia in the context of refugee law - courts' approach to what constitutes persecution in conflict with Parliament's understanding - level of harm that a person must endure in order to be eligible for refugee status - narrow definition of persecution should be adopted such that only those asylum seekers whose subsistence is imperilled should qualify as refugees.

Criminal legislation Victoria 2003

Fully annotated Crimes Act 1958 (Victoria) and Summary Offences Act 1966 (Victoria). Extracted from two-volume looseleaf service 'Bourke's Criminal Law Victoria'. Cross-referenced to cases, other acts and regulations and other publications dealing with the topics under discussion. Reflects the law as amended to 1 January 2003. Includes table of cases and index. Nash is a practicing QC and former academic at Monash University. Bagaric is a barrister and solicitor.

Criminal laws in Australia : cases and materials

This book is the most user-friendly of all the criminal law books currently available in Australia. This is the only book that deals comprehensively with the criminal law in all Australian states and territories. Unlike the other criminal law books available to Australian law lecturers, it is both a casebook and textbook.

Criminal laws in Australia, cases and materials

Criminal Laws in Australia: Cases and Materials" deals comprehensively with the criminal law in all Australian states and territories and is both a casebook and textbook.

Opting out of shareholder governance rights: a new perspective on contractual freedom in Australian corporate law

One of the classic debates in corporate law relates to whether the rules of corporate law are ar should be 'mandatory', in that companies must comply, or 'enabling' - meaning a set of default rules which companies have the choice of adopting or 'opting out' of through alternative contractual arrangements. The so-called 'mandatory/enabling' debate has been especially prominent in the United States fro numerous reasons, yet has also received some attention in Australia. That said, the extent to which companies can 'opt out' of corporate law has rarely been considered as a practical issue in Australia - particularly whether Australian companies can 'opt out' of provisions under the Corporations Act ("the Act"). However, just recently, two high-profile events in Australia have made 'opting out' of corporate law a relevant issue, especially the question of whether companies are free to 'opt out' of provisions of the Corporations Act  which provide express governance rights to shareholders. These events were Boral's constitutional amendment in 2003 to restrict the ability of shreholders to propose amendments to the company's constitution, and the contemplation and introduction of so-called 'pre-nuptial' agreements- designed to by-pass the right of shreholders to vote on removing directors in public companies. In the light of these two recent events, in this article the authors revisit the mandatory/enabling debate. However, rather than going over old ground as to whether a mandatory or enabling approach to corporate regulation is desirable, the authors approach the issue from a fresh perspective: that Australian Securitiesand Investments Commission's ("ASIC") existing relief powers under the Act should be extended to provide a means for companies to opt out of provisions containing shareholder governance rights.

Stop taxing happiness : a new perspective on progressive taxation

The development of taxation law and policy has been driven largely by economic considerations and economic theory. Underlying this is the assumption that money is important to human well-being and is in fact the most important thing in this regard. Recent empirical studies of human well-being disprove this assumption. Money has only a limited bearing on happiness. It follows that economic arguments that have long shaped taxation law and policy should be discarded in preference for recent learning concerning what really matters to people. The results of the recent studies have significant implications for the manner in which we should raise tax. We argue that for income under approximately $20,000 the rate should be 0 to 5 per cent. For income between $20,000 to $50,000 the rate should be about 15 per cent. Incomes beyond this level should taxed at approximately 75 per cent. There is no reason to have further rate differentials.